Army Contractor Appeals to 4th Circuit to Uphold Dismissal of Linguists’ False Claims Act Lawsuit

Global Linguist Solutions Fights False Claims Act Suit in Fourth Circuit, Claims Allegations Are Recycled

Global Linguist Solutions (GLS) is pushing back against accusations that it violated the False Claims Act in connection with U.S. Army contracts, telling the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the allegations have been public knowledge for years.

A group of linguists filed the lawsuit claiming that GLS improperly performed work meant for small business subcontractors, thereby violating the terms of its Army contracts. GLS, operating as a joint venture, has characterized these allegations as “recycled” in its recent court filing.

The case centers on military contracting practices, particularly the requirements that large contractors delegate certain portions of government work to small businesses. These set-aside provisions are designed to ensure small businesses receive fair access to lucrative government contracts.

According to court documents, the linguists allege that GLS circumvented small business participation requirements by performing work itself that should have been allocated to smaller companies. Such actions, if proven, would constitute a violation of the False Claims Act, which prohibits companies from submitting false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government.

The dispute highlights ongoing challenges within the defense contracting sector, where the Department of Defense spends billions annually on language services for overseas military operations. Linguists play critical roles in intelligence gathering, translation, and cultural advisory services in conflict zones and military operations worldwide.

GLS, formed as a joint venture between DynCorp International and AECOM’s former subsidiary Global Linguist Solutions, has been a major provider of linguistic services to the U.S. military, particularly during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The company has held contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to provide translation and interpretation services in various theaters of operation.

The joint venture’s defense rests on the public disclosure bar within the False Claims Act, which generally prevents qui tam lawsuits based on information that has already been disclosed through public channels. GLS contends that the allegations have been publicly known for years, which would typically bar such claims under the statute.

False Claims Act cases in the defense contracting sphere have become increasingly common over the past decade, with whistleblowers – known as “relators” in legal terminology – seeking to expose fraudulent billing practices and contract violations. These cases can result in treble damages and significant penalties for contractors found to have violated the law.

Small business participation requirements remain a cornerstone of federal procurement policy, with agencies required to establish goals for small business contracting and subcontracting. The Department of Defense, as the government’s largest contractor, faces particular scrutiny regarding its adherence to these requirements.

The Fourth Circuit’s ruling in this case could have significant implications for government contractors, particularly those operating as joint ventures or those with small business subcontracting obligations. A decision favoring the linguists could potentially expose large defense contractors to increased liability if they fail to properly allocate work to small business partners.

Legal experts watching the case note that courts have generally shown increased scrutiny of defense contracting practices in recent years, though the public disclosure bar remains a powerful defense in many False Claims Act cases.

The timing of the allegations and when they became public information will likely be central to the Fourth Circuit’s analysis, as will the specific contractual language governing GLS’s small business subcontracting requirements.

As the case proceeds through the appellate process, it underscores the complex interplay between federal procurement regulations, small business set-asides, and the enforcement mechanisms designed to ensure compliance with government contracting rules.